Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/VoneCone/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets

 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

See Sorry:) OTRS volunteers only.Will lead to the potential discovery of other accounts used in violation of TOU and local policies.From the ticket-details, this is clearly an experienced user.Ping .  Winged Blades Godric 14:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Would be interesting to see if a CU pulls up other accounts with similar editing behavior as they are obviously using socks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:12, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No, despite all the comments, I remain definitely interested in the Check-user results.There's nothing to lose! Winged Blades Godric 07:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * @BBB23:--Please explain how a quite proffesional UPE appear to be so experienced without having socks.And, I do not know how you came to use thw qualifier obsessed with UPE either!. Winged Blades Godric 07:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I have OTRS access but don't have the rights to see that ticket. I guess this will have to wait for someone else to come along. --Deskana (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think OTRS access matters much in this case (I don't have it at all and didn't know there were "tiers" of access). If I didn't think I'd get a lot of grief, I'd decline the CU request and close the report. As some know, I don't favor one-account SPIs, particularly when fueled by the obsession to eliminate UPE (sorry to be blunt - I don't like UPE, either). The fact that the editor appears to be experienced could be explained by other reasons than they are a sock. Finally, they made only three edits and are already blocked anyway. The last time I declined one of these reports I got endless complaints.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest closing this SPI. I was convinced enough behaviorally and after reviewing the OTRS ticket that this was likely UPE and spamming to block, but having seen enough of these cases and given the timeframe, my gut tells me that it is unlikely that a CU would be much use in this case. This account has been blocked so it can't be used to get EC or other permissions. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no strong feels either way. If people wish to close go ahead. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Closing per my own judgment + 's and 's comments. My "obsession" comment wasn't directed at you personally but at a trend at Wikipedia among a much larger group of editors. I have no idea how strongly you feel about UPE. "nothing to lose" is not a policy-based justification for running a check.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * However User:Bbb23 your "obsession comment" was somewhat inappropriate. WP:CU specifically says "CheckUser data may be used to investigate, prevent, or respond to:" "Disruption (or potential disruption) of any Wikimedia project;" and "Legitimate concerns about bad-faith editing." And we have a WP:TOU that says "As part of these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation."
 * So accounts for which there is reasonable evidence or concern that they are in breach of our TOU is a policy based justification for a CU Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Glad I'm not the only one who feels that way. I've never been a fan of spammers, but lately the levels of anti-UPE hysteria are getting to be too much for me. Sro23 (talk) 03:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)